I’ve noticed that often expressions of concern about the church’s actions are met with comments about being offended. Recently I posted quotes from Randy Bott’s recent comments on blacks and the priesthood. A friend responded with this:
“He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.” – Brigham Young”
This seems like a common response, we’ve seen it on this forum. When people are upset or angry, they are informed that they are offended and should not be. My question is, is it wrong to be offended? Many of us are offended by things that happen in and outside of the church. And we react to offensive things by sharing our feelings, by asking for change. That seems like a natural reaction to offensive things, and a reaction that will help to keep offinsive things from happening again. But many seem to believe that if we are offended, we can be dismissed. Why is that? What is wrong with being offended?
44 Responses
I think it depends on what we do with our feelings. Gossip, whine, distance ourselves from others, especially those who disagree with us – bad idea. Speak up, ask questions, express true feelings, work for change – good idea. I cannot tolerate the head-in-the-sand types who dismiss every concern with a quote about the dangers of being offended. There are plenty of scriptures telling us not to be offensive, too. No one deserves a pass for prejudice, meaness, pride, a desire to hurt others or even just a clueless, bred-in-the-bone offensiveness. You are old, set in your ways, raised in a benighted place by prejudiced people? So what? If we truly honor our parents by living so that others, seeing us, think well of them, then you must grow and change. Mean is mean; ignorant is ignorant. We should all call everything by its true name.
Several years ago, women in our stake were not allowed to say the opening prayer in Sacrament simply because we were women. I heard a lot of “Don’t be offended” and “You know the priesthood . . .”, followed by a sigh. I asked every leader I could find, starting with my husband, and was told, “The first law of Heaven is obedience.” Whatever. (By the way, I would argue that it is love.) I finally talked to the new stake president, who found a handwritten note on the printed minutes of an old regional meeting. He promised to bring it up at stake conference with the visiting authority, Elder Gene R. Cook. His answer? That policy is not church policy and would stop now. It did. The president called a special general priesthood meeting that week and said, “This stops now!” I heard of men who were not happy about that, but I heard from more women who were overjoyed with this small bit of equality. I am very glad I was offended.
Now, see, THAT is a perfect example of intelligence and action instead of just taking offense and going off to whine about it. Not accepting a foolish “we just do it that way answer,” but NOT “not accepting” it in a similarly offensive way, and continuing to ask questions in a peaceful manner until the question was answered in an INTELLIGENT manner… and a theologically sound one. And thank goodness for an intelligent stake pres who realized that asking a question never caused any harm….and got an intelligent answer. If all wards and stakes were so blessed, we could get rid of a lot of the accidentally passed along false “doctrines” or “I’ve heard this is why we do this” altogether and get back to true doctrine, which is where we all belong. You are so right that there is a huge difference between the anger answer, taking offense, and recognizing something that IS offensive tot he sensibilities and to the Spirit of God, and figuring out a way to find out the truth about it so that truth can be passed onward, instead of the offensive half-truths that Satan hoes get passed on instead. Good for you!
Awesome example! I agree that just getting mad isn’t very productive, but if it leads to positive change, then it strikes me as a good thing. Way to make good changes!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being offended, no matter what any church leader (whether Brigham Young or David Bednar) says about it. There is such a thing as actions and behaviors and language that is offensive. The correct immediate reaction is to be offended by those things. And if you aren’t immediately offended and someone else is, I think before one points one’s finger at that other person and accuses them of the smallness of mind and spirit associated with choosing to be offended for no reason, we should take a very real, very hard look at what caused the offense and try to understand how things could be different in a way that would cause less harm without sacrificing something essential.
The problem is that so many in the church take as a starting premise that everything in the church, at least everything perceived as coming from on high and established by God’s chosen leaders, is a priori good and proper. In light of that, taking offense could never be an appropriate reaction. Talk’s like Bednar’s do nothing but reinforce unquestioning obedience, since yet again the problem whenever anyone sees a problem in the church lies in that person’s sinfulness and only in that person’s sinfulness (even if their only sin is choosing to be offended).
I say wake up. There is such a thing as offensive practices. And when those offensive practices cause harm, the response should not be to shut up those who have enough temerity to actually speak up about it but to listen to them and assess whether there isn’t some way to change for the better. Such a practice can only bring about good. And it doesn’t preclude recognizing those people who really are just choosing to be offended in the face of something that couldn’t possibly in any light be seen as offensive; such people do exist and there’s nothing wrong with understanding that and behaving properly. But to name every single person who is offended by something such a person is in itself offensive.
Well said Amelia. I think that offense is a normal reaction, just like all emotions no matter what the emotion is. How we respond to those actions is our choice. Sometimes life circumstances have ‘trained’ us to react to certain emotions in very specific ways, but ultimately the reaction is under our control. I really enjoy sites like this with avid discussion and participants who voice often oposing opinions and still do it civily. It gets me thinking.
I think sometimes the offended person lets the emotion consume them and, in turn, responds in a way that is offensive to the offending party (make sense?) then we get stuck in this offending circle with high emotions and nothing productive comes of it at all. Sometimes people do hurtful things whether knowlingly or unknowlingly, and it is certainly ok to be hurt. The problem lies when we start intentionally hurting/offending each other.
I agree, Jules, that so much of this has to do with intentions and learning to control what we can control. In other words, if someone does something that offends us, we can’t usually control that behavior. We can control our own behavior, though that’s not always an easy thing. That’s another aspect of this discussion in the church that frustrates me. In some instances (for instance, think of a sex abuse victim being offended or hurt by some of the church rhetoric about chastity that says girls should be in control, etc.), controlling our hurt and feelings of being offended is much more difficult than others. And the rhetoric of “there’s no such thing as being offended” or “only fools are offended” simply lacks all charity for those who are hurting. Which is why I think it’s so important to, as you point out, consider intentions and root causes behind how people act when they’ve been offended.
To tell someone that they shouldn’t be offended when they have experienced offense is invalidation and a form of psychological and emotional ABUSE. Those who perpetrate abuse have often been victims of abuse themselves. Sometimes they just adopt abusive behaviors because that is what they were taught. Other times they develop abusive behaviors as coping mechanisms against ongoing abuse.
In abusive systems there is sometimes developed a false sense of peace, which is perpetuated by a culture of silence. “All is well in Zion” until someone brings a problem to light. Victims of societal and spiritual abuse may feel their very fragile sense of “peace” threatened when problems are brought to light, when someone voices that they have been offended. They may fear being caught up in a backlash. They may begin to (sub)consciously recognize that their treasured sense of peace is false and not want to let go. They then might fall back on habit (supported by those in authority) or on their own attack that which they view is threatening their “peace”, the other’s (assumed) false sense of offense (because if it were true then they couldn’t have their peace). Because they have also been abused doesn’t make their perpetuating abuse right. But I hope it helps answer some of your questions. And knowing this can help us have greater compassion towards those who revictimize victims, as they are likely victims themselves and just at a different point of progression and awareness.
Your friend may have genuinely thought this was a trivial thing to get upset over. However poorly she expressed her opinion, her feelings that it was trivial shouldn’t be invalidated either. Or your friend may have genuinely felt threatened, fearful of losing your friendship, peace at church, strength in testimony. In this case she would be invalidating and denying the rightness of your feelings of offense because she felt they threatened her wellbeing. And that would not be right. Was she expressing herself or indicting you? It is hard to tell which is more likely, her having just used someone else’s words.
But those who simply and outright say, “You are choosing to find offense,” are assuming superior authority to know and interpret another’s internal states. That is wrong and abusive.
AMEN to the above.
I feel like the notion of “taking offense” in the Church is used by members to discourage dissent and disparage those who might leave the Church or have less than positive feelings about it. I can’t remember how many times I’ve heard, “Oh so-and-so stopping coming to church because they were “offended” or “people just pretend to be “offended” so they can have an excuse for leaving the church”.
There are thing are inherently offensive. Rape, abuse, violence, injustice are offensive by nature. I suppose you could choose not to be offended . . . but I don’t think that sort of apathy is something to aspire to. We talk so much about listening to spiritual promptings, why is my inspiration deemed by others as just “choosing to be offended”?
Wow, I was sexually abused (by an older brother) and my Mom actually referred to the abuse as being offended, and wanted me to ‘forgive’ as a part of my Young Women’s award project. — This was of course a terrible situation, and my parents were probably just doing what they thought was right, but they really should have gotten some professional help.— There is more to this story, but in short, In my family the “don’t be offended”/forgive message was a way for my parents to try and make a terrible situation go away because they didn’t know how to deal with it. I always associate the term ‘don’t be offended’ with this very terrible situation, and I HATE it.
I’m sorry that happened to you. I can’t even imagine. I’m sorry that that rhetoric of “taking offense” is used to such an extent. It is truly terrible.
Valerie, that’s terrible! I’m truly sorry that that happened to you. That’s such a sad way to treat abuse.
There is a great post at Segullah about offending/taking offense-
http://segullah.org/daily-special/an-offender-for-a-word/
I should start of with saying that I think I’ve been offended by pretty much everyone and everything in the last few days. Sometimes your pain about one issue is so deep that no one even stands a chance for not “offending” you.
I think “being offended” is an interesting thing. On the one hand I wonder why we’d ever put so much stalk into what someone else says that we’d let it bother us. Why would it matter so much? On the other hand, we’re all human, and seek for love, understanding, support, friendship – I guess that’s why it DOES matter what others say.
So, I guess I think it’s important to try to give people the benefit of the doubt. If someone didn’t mean to be hurtful or offensive, I think it’s good to try to take the issue from a more positive angle. However, I think no matter what, we’re entitled to our feelings. If something was hurtful to us, then that is what it was. Even if the other person didn’t mean for it to be hurtful, or even when no one else has ever been hurt by those words. I think allowing people to feel what they feel is important. I can’t stand it when people try to deny others’ feelings. If that was their experience, that was their experience. If someone else had another experience – fine. But why dismiss the other person’s version?
So, I guess being offended is ok in my book. But I think we also need to reflect inward to see why certain things are hurtful to us and whether it’s truly the other person’s fault (as in did they really say something horrible? I mean, sometimes I hurt my foot and will yelp ouch, and my husband asks if I’m ok, and I get seriously bothered by it. Would I be yelling ouch if I was ok? But as bothersome as this is to me, I’m not sure that my husband’s question is in fact offensive. Rather I think we’re dealing with a communication problem where I’m not clearly stating what I need, and my husband isn’t sure what to do…)
I’m also a fan though of calling things what they are. Thus I called my FIL a racist today. It didn’t go well. He seriously, literally almost had a heart attack.
Being driven to promote change seems good to me. Then again, sometimes the price of it seems so high that I’m not sure anymore…
Being offended is a psychological defense that makes use of the line between social acceptability and unacceptability as a trump card by seizing the high ground. It is also effective for turning the tables when one is embarrassed. Some may argue taking offense at the abuse of others is healthy but sympathy and empathy is far more healthy and authentic than being offended.
I think being offended can be like any other emotion…sometimes it just happens. But I think the dialogue about choosing not to be offended goes a step beyond that. I think the idea behind it is to not be acted upon. To choose to turn to the Savior for comfort, to choose charity, to seek guidance of the Spirit with how to deal with the pain, etc. I think often offense can be turned into justification for angry actions or actions that end up hurting one’s self.
I also think that wanting change can be good, but it can also be a trap. If one’s happiness is dependent on such change happening, then I don’t think that is usually a healthy way to live. And again, I think this kind of ‘being acted upon’ mode of dealing with offense is more of what is discussed when we talk about taking offense in the Church.
Of course, there is the flip side of not dismissing people’s pain, too. But I think at the general level, it’s important to be taught correct principles about healthy living. At the individual level, I think it can be helpful to just stop and listen and have sympathy. Sometimes it takes time to work through pain, and having a safe place to fall can help….as long as that also can include honest feedback about unhealthy responses to pain, too.
I think I’m rambling now…..
Jesus was offended at the money changers in the temple. Or maybe he was faking it to elicit a calculated response. Not enough people wanted him dead.
Good point. Psychological games and defenses are by definition subconscious when they rise to the couscous autonomous level they become manipulations. Was Jesus displaying his natural man or was he teaching by use of manipulation or acting?
‘@Bradley, great point. I truly believe there are things that are inherently offensive. I believe Christ was demonstrating his outrage at something that was offensive. I don’t think that makes him any less perfect. Something wrong was happening and he wanted to correct it.
We needn’t be victims of our emotions. Inherent suggests that offence is contained in the act one finds offensive (this is projection) and it ignores the receiver’s power to choose a given response or default to their subconscious reaction. Instead I would say that some things are almost universally offensive meaning that almost everyone would be offended but them.
‘@Howard, I’ll give you that.
Many love taking offense or love to hate taking offense because it permits them an almost socially acceptable public catharsis.
To say that there is no offense in the Church is to say that we are all perfect. On the other hand, because something offends one person doesn’t necessarily mean that thing is offensive. One member might be offended at the idea of paying tithing on net income while another member may be offended at the idea of paying it from gross. A third member might be offended at the very discussion regardless of positions taken.
What can we use for an objective standard for offense? Is it merely the generally accepted practice among a society? If so then pornography is no longer offensive and extramarital affairs are coming soon.
I prefer to think that what offends God is in fact offensive. Is it offensive because it offends Him or does it offend Him because it is offensive? What is good? Murder is offensive because it offends God. Rape, abuse, etc. are offensive because they offend God. It is merely a happy coincidence that our society generally find those offensive as well. Good on us!
Spiritual abuse, assuming authority without God’s approval, and a myriad of other things offend God as well. Many of these things happen in this Church of imperfect people. To deny it is to say we’re all perfect (except those needlessly taking offense). Now we may disagree on whether some particular thing was actually offensive (intended to be or not) or if someone is merely taking offense, but that still denies the main issue.
The issue is instead of assuming someone is “offended” in the sense they’re looking for offense, wanting an excuse, or just plain dislike someone or something about the Church, how about we try to understand what has offended someone and try to make things better? If it’s that person’s own issue, we can help. If it’s ours, we can change. If it’s someone else who caused the offense, we can support. In any of these options there’s something we can do that may help the offended person.
In the end the most important thing to realize is that there are things that are inherently offensive (they offend God). While each of our standards of offense may vary, we can still grow together without keeping quiet about offenses or ostracizing people who voice an offense.
Bobman,
How do you know God can be offended and how do you know what offends him?
There are a number of scriptures that speak to the idea of offending God. In the cases given it seems clear to me that one offends God by breaking the commandments, or by living by a spirit contrary to that of the Spirit of God. Therefore it’s not a big jump to assume that God is offended when we sin against his commandments, and that the commandments themselves delineate what offends God. At least as a rough outline of such.
Now for your reading pleasure, the scripture references I allude to. Notice the root word “offend” in each passage:
Alma 41:9 “And now behold, my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin.”
Alma talking to his son Corianton. What did the boy do to “offend” God? He broke a pretty big deal commandment.
D&C 135:4 “…I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men…”
Hosea 13:1 “When Ephraim spake trembling, he exalted himself in Israel; but when he offended in Baal, he died.”
3 Nephi 28:35 “And it would be better for them if they had not been born. For do ye suppose that ye can get rid of the justice of an offended God, who hath been trampled under feet of men, that thereby salvation might come?”
2 Chronicles 28:13 “And said unto them, Ye shall not bring in the captives hither: for whereas we have offended against the Lord already, ye intend to add more to our sins and to our trespass: for our trespass is great, and there is fierce wrath against Israel.”
D&C 59:21 “And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.”
D&D 64:13 “And this ye shall do that God may be glorified—not because ye forgive not, having not compassion, but that ye may be justified in the eyes of the law, that ye may not offend him who is your lawgiver—“
JS-H 1:25 “…I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.”
Bobman,
There is a big difference between offense which is a violation of the law or rules and offending someone which is an emotional response. You have contradicted yourself: if D&C 59:21 is true how can the other passages be true and visa versa? It is common for humankind to assign human emotions to other living things and even to inanimate objects such cartoons, films and commercials we think it’s cute, it brings us pleasure and it is a way to relate. Are you projecting human emotion on to God? Offense is an immature emotion I prefer to think God has transcended taking offense with authentic emotion. But there is no proof for your position or mine.
I never defined offense as an emotional response. I merely stated we imperfect beings may have a different standard of offense (set of rules) than another imperfect being or The Perfect Being. I don’t dismiss that such offenses may elicit an emotional response, but I do not define an offense or taking offense has having an emotional response to the transgression of a rule. So I fail to see where I contradicted myself so much as failed to define offense in the same manner as you.
Yes human beings like to anthropomorphise things, but I don’t think it is so wrong to do with God. The scriptures are filled with words describing potentially emotional responses God has. Words such as wrath, weeping, etc. While I expect God doesn’t have the same emotional response to offenses that I do, I suspect there is a proper place for God to experience emotions, such as weeping over the suffering of His children and our wickedness.
Offense isn’t an emotion so much as it is a state. When we transgress a rule, we offend against it. If that rule is God’s rule we offend His rule. Assuming the scriptures are inspired and assuming God isn’t arbitrary in His use of rules, we offend Him. Sure his response may be to say, “well these blessings will be withheld then,” rather than “Ooh, that makes me angry,” but we must separate emotional responses to offenses from the offenses themselves.
Bobman the title of the OP is What Does it Mean to Be Offended? How is this unemotional? How does this address “offending against a rule”?
Simple. We individuals have our own sets of rules. If someone breaks one of our rules we are offended, regardless of whether the rule matches up with God’s or not, or matches up with other people’s rules or not.
How emotional we feel about them is secondary. But emotions often come into play, especially when others tell us our rules haven’t been broken and we need to keep quiet about it, or get over it without admitting any wrong has been done, more especially in cases where our rules actually match up with God’s.
So you can be offended without feeling any emotion associated with it?
I’m saying it is possible to have the appropriate reaction, whatever it may be. Emotions are responses to things not the things themselves.
Anyway it seems to me we aren’t going to agree on this, so let’s just move on.
I agree that people should be entitled to feel offended, just as they are any other emotion.
When I take opposing ideas ‘too personally’ (which may or may not be the same thing as being ‘offended’) sometimes I forfeit my ability to discuss, listen, or reason with others.
There was a YSA broadcast in late 2007/early 2008 by a 70 who opined that young adults need to take more care with their appearance in order to attract a mate. I’ve always remembered that after saying some pretty offensive things (he may have well have said ‘paint the barn’ for all his tact), he smiled and said, “Are you offended at me?” I recall being incredibly angry at that comment, as it insinuated that any negative response to his (pretty horrid) statements were simply emotive overreactions. As Amelia said, sometimes the correct action is to take offense.
For years I believed that it was wrong to take offense, that it was a choice and a sinful one at that. Then I became the subject of some very offensive comments and abusive actions by a church leader and couple of members of my ward. Sometimes it’s not possible to not take offense. We all have the right to protect ourselves from offense. Sometimes the only way to do that is to stay away from the offender, which sadly, may mean staying away from church.
Saying that you are offended is just shorthand for “I didn’t like that, please don’t do it again.” As human beings the only non-violent way we have to teach people how to treat us is to let them know when they have crossed the line. If we never tell them, how will they every know? That is not an endorsement of anger or hypersensitivity. And sometimes we really should lighten up. But telling someone else they should not be offended is pretty condescending, in my opinion. These feelings of offense very often help animate us to action that will set better boundaries, increase understanding or even resist injustice. Edmund Burke’s warning about what happens when good women do nothing seems apt.
You bring up great points. I don’t think it’s wrong to be offended, and I agree with what Maryly said. It’s dismissive to just write someone off as being offended.
I find it interesting that lessons I’ve heard about avoiding apostasy usually include stories about church members being offended about something petty. There’s Symonds Ryder, who was offended that his name was spelled wrong and the two women who shared a cow and took unequal portions of milk and cream or something. I think it’s insulting to lump those “offenses” in with people who are treated with sexism, racism, abuse, etc.
I agree that those are the stories we often hear. The implication of that is the you are being petty if you are offended by something or someone in the church, even if it is a terrible thing.
As I see it, we were given a “fight or flight” response from God to protect us and those we care for from physical, mental, emotional and even spiritual harm. Only we know how much, or how much MORE, pain and damage we can withstand. Likewise, we can in no way judge another who has used this God-given protection to save themselves or those they love from further harm.
Those who claim that we should not be offended have no way of knowing how many times we have already “turned the other cheek” nor do they know the path we are traveling.
To tell someone to NOT be offended is offensive and is often an attempt to excuse their own or others’ bad behavior.
AMEN!
I really like your point about not knowing someone else’s experiences. We don’t know why they are reacting how they are. In my mind, assuming they have a reason for anger or offense is much kinder and healthier then dismissing them because we don’t understand. That’s our problem, not theirs.
In the early 1980s I chuckled (sympathetically) to read the candid self-appraising put-down comment of a teenage girl who failed to meet her own goal. I had been there, and identified with how I supposed she felt. And so I smiled and chuckled when I read it on her bedroom wall. Unfortunately, my date was her protective older sister who bristled with offense at what she perceived as my making fun of her little sister. I dug a deeper hole by immediately quoting Brigham Young’s famous “fool” statement. I was the fool that time, as her anger only intensified. Now she was not only protecting little sister, but her own intelligence! Stupid me. For some odd reason, she still married me. And 30+ years later, like tonight, I continue to give offense, mostly unintended, and struggle to know how to understand what offends and how to deal with that. And more importantly, how to help her heal from offenses. After giving a blessing, I turned here.
Introspectively, tonight I stumbled upon this thread after re-reading Elder Packer’s http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/11/balm-of-gilead?lang=eng and Elder Hanks’ http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1973/10/forgiveness-the-ultimate-form-of-love?lang=eng&query=offense. Thanks to all who posted on this topic. I agree there are certainly times when we must take offense and stand up and be counted and make a difference. But when?
I love Elder Hanks’ quote from Robert Louis Stevenson: ““The truth of Christ’s teaching seems to be this: In our own person and fortune, we should be ready to accept and pardon all; it is our cheek we are to turn and our coat we are to give to the man who has taken our cloak. But when another’s face is buffeted, perhaps a little of the lion will become us best. That we are to suffer others to be injured and stand by, is not conceivable and surely not desirable.”
My own sweetheart’s feeling of offense tonight seems to be in part that I was not more the lion in preventing offensive words/actions by my now deceased parents. Ironically, were they able to talk to me, I suppose they would consider themselves to have suffered offense from her and/or me.
My parents both recently passed away, somewhat estranged from me, and more estranged from my wife because of offenses perceived on one side or the other. Elder Packer’s Balm of Gilead talk has a wonderful story about a country doctor and the grief stricken widower he created, and concludes: “John, leave it alone. Mary, leave it alone.” How do we do that? How do we help another to do that?
I was just talking to my friend about this the other day. Part of the problem with being “offended,” isn’t just that our feelings are being hurt. Part of the problem is the lack of acknowledgement that something was indeed said and done with the specific intent to do so.
I have a problem with leadership, (and indeed certain members who are not in leadership position), when they require me to come into the chapel and raise my hand to support them when they show no remorse(for lack of a better word) for things that have transpired which shouldn’t have.
I am debating whether or not I should attend a the temple open house in Philadelphia (when its finally done) because I do not wish to be in the same room with these people and act as if everything is okay. It is not. I think my feelings would dissipate if that acknowledgement actually took place. but it hasn’t so as a result there is no place for me to go to air it out
You hit on an important point here, Diane. And I love the quote from Maya Angelou too.
I would like to share a quote from the noted poet Maya Angelou, “People will forget what you have said, People will forget what you have done, but people will never forget what you made them feel.”
Maya Angelou
I think this explains everything in a nutshell.
[…] Bradley, commenting on DefyGravity’s post “What Does it Mean to Be Offended?” at the Exponent: Jesus was offended at the money changers in the temple. Or maybe he was faking it to elicit a calculated response. Not enough people wanted him dead. […]